Oxburgh and Davies

Remember how Geoffrey Boulton tied himself into knots about his connections to the UEA and the climate science community. Now the emboldened Trevor Davies isn’t even bothering. Alert readers at CA here and at Bishop Hill’s spotted the following 2006 picture of Oxburgh (3rd from right) with Davies (far right).

Caption: Lord Oxburgh and the Vice-Chancellor [of U of Newcsatle] joined a group of delegates for the first of three annual HSBC lectures. From left: Mark Vines of HSBC; Francis Sullivan of HSBC; Vice-Chancellor Professor Christopher Edwards [of U of Newcsatle] ; Professor Keith Tovey of UEA; Lord Oxburgh; Professor Paul Younger [of U of Newcsatle] ; Professor Trevor Davies of UEA. Running text: Lord Oxburgh’s lecture rounded off the first HSBC Partnership in Environmental Innovation Day, attended by representatives from HSBC and the University of East Anglia as well as a number of high-profile business partners and alumni.

We discussed Davies in an earlier CA post here. In that letter, Davies (who has vociferously denounced the public circulation of the Climategate Letters) sent a “leaked” government document to the CRU Five so that they would have an edge over their rivals for government funding.

I now have a leaked document which spells out some of the research councils’ thinking. I will get a copy over to CRU today. Please keep this document within the CRU5, since it may compromise the source.

To my knowledge, no climate scientists to date have spoken out against Davies’ use of a leaked document nor have any demanded that he be prosecuted. I wonder if the Norwich police are working as diligently on this case as they are on the source of the Climategate dossier.

52 Comments

Purely anecdotal but I was asked this evening if, in the light of Oxburgh’s appointment, it would be possible for a student to sue the UEA for damages or to get a tuition refund and transfer to “a proper university”. You’d have to be pretty heartless not to pity those kids in Norfolk. :o(

Global Warming must be great for universities as publicity.
Our faculty are a great bunch of guys, busy saving the earth itself. Send us more grants and students and we will make things even better! Let the good times roll. Davies is looking happy, he may like to party. Rock on East Anglia.

The alert reader in both cases being ‘mpaul’, using exactly the same wording here as on Bishop Hill, so I’m presuming the same person, based on the evidence currently available.

What to make of the event in 2006 (or perhaps late 2005) that led to the photoshoot? HSBC Partnership in Environmental Innovation Day, with the ex-chairman of Shell giving the talk, as part of a wider involvement of the sponsors in the two universities:

HSBC is supporting a number of Newcastle University projects and posts with an environmental theme. The funding is benefiting a wide range of projects at Newcastle and East Anglia Universities, including research into geothermal energy, how to make East Anglia a carbon-neutral university, and the production of low-cost water filters in Bangladesh.

Well, those low-cost water filters sound a great thing. I like to be positive, as I know other contributors here do. And that of course was what HSBC was always looking for from this initiative – positive publicity. Whatever else may be true, I doubt the bank’s PR department will be as eager for such a link up with UEA this year.

This year clearly the action is all with those outfits seeking to operate below the PR radar, like GLOBE International, a name almost beyond parody for the budding conspiracist. But the extent those guys have already bungled stealth mode, with the very unfortunate choices of Morley and Byers, and the timing of the Oxburgh announcement on the very day Channel 4 showed the incriminating film with Byers asking for $5000 a day to influence government policy, leading to him being stripped of his membership of the Labour party … this is the kind of publicity no PR firm in world could ever buy you. Well done everyone.

Isn’t Cambridge in East Anglia? I know that standards are slipping at that once famous university too – but you would think that at some point the Cambridge dons would help ease these people into early retirement. (Before they bring the county into complete disrepute).

A quick google revealed this baffling side activity for Trevor – he clearly does not have much to do – apart from saving the planet.

“I wonder if the Norwich police are working as diligently on this case as they are on the source of the Climategate dossier.”

I’m suspecting few have too much to worry about in that case since I’ve heard nothing after this exchange with them:

From: Alan Wilkinson
To: Irwin, David
Date: Mar 02 2010 – 10:40am

Hi there

I doubt I can add anything to your information since I know nothing that is not already public on the relevant blog sites and have no direct contact with any of the individuals involved. If you have specific questions it would be easier to use email to answer them as I am on the other side of the world in New Zealand so the timezone is a problem. Email also allows me to research my records for any answers you require rather than relying on memory – particularly since my FOI request was nearly a year ago.

I am one of a team of police officers investigating the recent theft of data and emails from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.

During the enquiry I have become aware that you have previously made requests to the UEA for the release of data under the Freedom of Information Act

Accordingly, I am keen to discuss the issue further with you if at all possible. I can be contacted on any of the numbers detailed below or by return of email. Preferably, could provide me with a contact phone number and a suitable time to call you.

Alan Wilkinson – I have just received a similar request by snail mail from the Norfolk Constabulary today. I must surely be the last on the list and was hitherto feeling quite left out. At least DC Baker knew that I resided in Australia and that there was a time difference of sorts.

From: DC Sean Baker
Date: 16/03/10
Re: FOI UEA

“Dear Mr…. “(Comment: Dr would have been nice, as it is my correct pre-nominal and it is what I signed off as in the FOI request. But never mind)

…(general background)…(records indicate that you…)..and then this

“I appreciate that you live on the other side of the world and communication may be difficult so I would ask that if there is a significant time difference you let me know what it is so when I call its not in the middle of the night.

Kind Regards
Sean Baker

I worry that the team investigating this heinous information technology crime have no one amongst them who can work out the time difference between Brisbane Australia and Lowestoft, Sussex. I have an almanac, a sextant and an abacus so I will do my best to calculate the delta t. Significant or otherwise.

The time must have come that you should put forward your panel selection for such inquiries.

You or your followers criticise nearly every sentient creature put up by UK gov or UEA or ….

You must name names.

They must not have relatives/friends/degrees/etc. associated with UEA (jones), Pennsylvania State University (mann), University of Virginia (mann), etc, etc. …(trenbereth), …(Santer)

They must not have co-authored papers with any of the accused, they must not have connections to environmental groups, they must not have connections to renewable energy, they must not have received funding from environmental, left wing, they must not …etc.

They must not have a green blog nor must they have contributed to one.

AND of course:

They must not have relatives/friends/degrees/etc. associated with University of New England (plimer), New South Wales (Plimer), University of Newcastle (plimer), University of Melbourne (Plimer)University of Adelaide (plimer), University Guelph (Mcintrick), etc, etc.

They must not have authored, co-authored papers against AGW, they must not have connections to right wing think tanks in any country, they must not have connections to fossil fuel, they must not have received funding from fossil fuel lobby, right wing, they must not …etc.

They must not have a blog critical of AGW nor must they have contributed to one.

They must not be a member of any political party.

They must not have contributed papers to, or financially to any group that has been critical of/supported AGW.

None of the above must have occurred within the last 20 (?) years.

The must have absolutely no view on AGW (essential).
There must be a leader in the field of climatology’s (is this compatible with above)
There must be a scientist with belief in acceptable Scientific process,
There must be a Statistician versed in all versions of statistical analysis (see Tamino’s blog for controversy) with no preconceived ideas of correct application.
There must be a “judge” versed in finding facts amongst the dross.
There must be … etc.

The criteria for selecting a panel to review the performance of an organization is well known and has been applied for many years in the Anglosphere. These are not controversial requests. You recuse any close family member or friend, anyone with a significant financial interest in the organization, anyone who has already spoken out in public about the merits of the case, anyone whose views are intemperant on the subject. For this review, this leaves a vast number of people still eligible. I have noticed that the panel is not exclusively made up of people working in the UK. They could have done much better. I believe they need to go the extra mile to convince the public that the review is competent and unbiased. Have they done that?

Ford – your logic is faulty. Just because you know a particular panel is incorrect it does not mean you know the correct panel. Nor does it mean finding the correct panel is your responsibility.

The cost issue is irrelevant – the UEA called this Inquiry voluntarily. One would expect part of their decision process would be to assess the cost of running a satisfactory process and whether or not they could afford it. If they cannot afford to run it properly this reflects on their commitment to a valid exercise in the same way as their selection of compromised panel members.
++++++++++++++
From Bishop Hill’s coverage:

Announcing the appointment, Prof Trevor Davies, the University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, said: “CRU’s scientific papers have been examined by scientists from other institutions through the peer review process before being accepted for publication by international journals. We have no reason to question the effectiveness of this process. Nevertheless, given the concerns about climate research expressed by some in the media, we decided to augment the Muir Russell review with an independent assessment of CRU’s key publications in the areas which have been most subject to comment.

“We are delighted that a renowned scientist of the standing of Lord Oxburgh has agreed to chair this very strong independent panel and await its findings with great interest. Colleagues in CRU have committed themselves to providing any support required by the panel.”

FP, for the original Muir Russell inquiry, I think that they should have done what most inquiries do – appoint a judge. I’ve suggested that in the past and do so again. I am unfamiliar with the roster of UK judges, but I’m sure that there are many well-qualified judges who could have produced a report that would concluded the controversy one way or the other in a way that Geoffrey Boulton and Muir Russell are unlikely to.

Speaking of the Muir Russell inquiry … the other day, my mouse and I ventured over to http://www.cce-review.org/Evidence.php in the hope of finding and reading the submissions (which they promised to publish “quickly”) made to the inquiry. Alas, we were very disappointed. A follow-E-mail, asking when these submissions will be available, has thus far resulted only an an auto-response [which indicates that if relevant to the remit my E-mail will be included in their evidence] and a read-receipt from the designated Luther Pendragon PR Person.

And while I’m here, I know it’s O/T, but I thought you might be interested in a graph (not a hockey stick) showing the number of 2007 publications included in the references to 40 of AR4’s 44 chapters. Preliminary results indicate that there are 354 of these leaps back to the future, of which 56 pertain to the work of WG1.

Firstly I don’t think the contributors here are followers of Mr McIntyre. Secondly your diatribe is flawed, simply because if an inquiry is to be independant then those chosen to be involved should be, well, independant and have no conflict of interests.

For example if a major building collapsed and an inquiry were to be held into the cause, you would not expect members of that inquiry to have commercial interests in the project or to have been closely involved in the past or have recent connections with the Contractor, Architect or Structural Engineer, or would you? I think not. This is because it would not serve the common good and give confidence to the public.

On the 26th of October 1966, after resolutions by both Houses of Parliament, the Secretary of State for Wales, Cledwyn Hughes, appointed a Tribunal to inquire into the causes of, and circumstances relating to, the Aberfan disaster. Sir Herbert Edmund Davies, a respected south Wales barrister with much experience of mining law, was appointed chairman. At its preliminary meeting, Davies posed the four broad questions that the Tribunal would look into. They were:

What exactly happened ?
Why did it happen ?
Need it have happened ? Was this a calamity which no reasonable human foresight could have prevented, or was it caused by blameworthy conduct by some persons or organisations ?
What lessons are to be learnt from what happened at Aberfan ?

My comment is that I do not recall at the time anyone questioning the integrity of the inquiry even though I was only a teenager.

He is good in statistics, so he busted the Hockey Sticks and taught Captain Jimmy that the US was too darn hot back in 1934.

Happily, he has a fine sense of humor, too. McIntryre can observe the antics of the Team and bring them to public attention. Pauchauri the Love Guru writes low-brow porn. Jerry North wings it. Mad Jim muses about lights-out in teapot domes. The University of East Anglia appoints rent-seekers and believers in the hypothesis of CO2-forced catastrophic global warming to offer a whitewash of its shoddy science. McIntyre does not have to do anything to make these parties look bad. They choose to do this to themselves. Sweet!

Ford, most legal inquiries don’t form “panels”. The judge is the judge and he conducts the inquiry. He would obtain testimony or consultation from relevant experts. The Muir Russell inquiry, in particular, is supposed to stay away from the scientific matters, so it’s particularly easy in this respect.

Has anyone seen the terms of reference for the Globe International/Oxburgh inquiry?

Selection of counsel for a judicial inquiry is as important as the selection of witnesses. As long as the counsel to the inquiry is not a failed NDP candidate like the aforementioned Paul Cavalluzo who chose to vigorously attack the former Conservative Premier Mike Harris when the Walkerton water issue was clearly a case of local hicks running a poor operation. Nepotism led to poisoned water.
Somewhat OT but important when asking for a judicial inquiry.

> Sir/Madam
>
> Many thanks for your email to the independent Climate Change Email Review. All emails will be read and eventually published by the Review.
> If relevant to the Review remit, your email will be considered as a submission by the Review team.
>
> Where possible we will try to respond to questions raised, though the volume of emails received means that this may take time.
>
> With best wishes
>
> The independent Climate Change Email Review team

This sort of thing is driving me from being a skeptic to cynic, or even a fatalist. I think I’ll listen to Leonard Cohen sing Everybody Knows (an emotional dose of reality for sure) tonight and then try to restore my faith in humanity tomorrow.

You are really grasping at straws. What was this document? If it was private e-mails hacked or downloaded from a computer without the owners knowledge you might be able to make a comparison with the stolen/hacked/leaked CRU e-mails. Has anyone asked Davies what this document was?

25 March: biased-bbc blog: Conspiracy?
The so-called (BBC World Service) trust is a founding partner of a body called COMplus, which describes itself as a “diverse global alliance of organisations committed to scaling-up the impact of sustainable development communications through partnership and collaboration.” Thus the BBC is a prime mover in shadowy – but highly organised – international efforts – snip – . To add insult to injury, COMplus, surprise, surprise, is funded by your money, via the Department for International Development (and of course through WST itself)…
It’s no coincidence that men like – snip- Stephen Byers are also involved as one of the main cheerleaders for COMplus…http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/03/conspiracy.html

First we had hundreds of thousands of pages of raw data, now we have tens of thousands of biased scientists. You sure do like big numbers Mike.
Here’s another one: there are billions of people on this planet. I bet we can come up with a few scientists capable of understanding the issue who don’t have their hand in the cookie jar.

Hide the decline — I don’t think this has been explained correctly to the public. Past temperature records are based largely on tree rings. Tree rings are “nature’s thermometer”. But are they really accurate? We can check tree rings against the recorded temperatures of the last 150 years and they should match. If they don’t match it means one of two things. 1)Tree rings don’t record past temperatures accurately and thus we have no idea of what temperatures were in the past thus no way of saying current temperatures are extraordinary or 2)the tree rings are accurate and the recent record of rising temperatures is false data. Either way global warming gets blown out of the water. That is why they had to “hide the decline” in temperature that recent tree ring samples were showing. Either tree rings are useless for establishing what temperatures were in the past or the current temperature data used to promote global warming is false. EWRG

I wasn’t sure how best to contact you but figured here was as good as place as any. I made a submission to the Inquiry and have received my copy.

I do have a certain sympathy with the Committee, given the pressure to get a quick result; anything controversial would potentially have a seismic effect on the election. However, the Inquiry was rushed, superficial and biased, not least because there was not a balance of evidence weighed orally and if people don’t read the submissions in full, you miss most of the evidence.

Having skimmed the findings and read the press, I’ve been ploughing through all the evidence again with a view to de-constructing the findings in the context of evidence presented.

I’ve already written to my MP requesting that the Inquiry be reopened or a new Inquiry called, after the election. This one can hardly be regarded as adequate in the light of the burden of policy and expenditure riding upon it.

Would you please contact me off-list with a view to preparing a formal submission to the Inquiry.